the folly of renewables

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by jackdog, Dec 21, 2014.

  1. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think everyone can agree that cheap and abundant energy is the key to raising the living standard of poor countries. It goies hand in hand with clean drinking water and access to better nutrition. The Center for Global Development just published a interesting paper. Solar and wind power is very expensive and not reliable as we all know. They are advising the OPIC to use natural gas in their future projects rather than solar and wind. That will enable 60 million more people to have access to energy, clean water and adequate food.

    We conservatively estimate that more than 60 million additional people in poor nations could gain access to electricity if the Overseas Private Investment Corporation were allowed to invest in natural gas projects, not just renewables.

    There has been a general bias toward using OPIC to invest principally in solar, wind, and other low-emissions energy projects as part of the administration’s effort to promote clean energy technology. An explicit policy capping the total greenhouse gas emissions in OPIC’s overall portfolio has further pushed the organization’s investments heavily toward renewables. Indeed, over the past five years, OPIC has invested in more than 40 new energy projects and all but two (in Jordan and Togo) are in renewables.


    http://international.cgdev.org/publ...ss-and-generation-overseas-private-investment
     
  2. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Similar to the giant scam of banning DDT in the 60's by a single administrator in the EPA based almost entirely on a work of fiction (Silent Spring).

    Some estimates place 3rd world deaths from malaria in the tens of millions. Most were children and they died rather unpleasantly.
    But liberals never had an issue allowing the third world to suffer to further their political agenda in the west......
     
  3. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Some conservatives will believe anything they read, without checking the facts.

    Because the fact is that DDT has never been banned for purposes of disease control, anywhere in the world, at any time. DDT is legal for disease control, was legal for disease control, and always has been legal for disease control. The only DDT bans have been for agricultural purposes.

    Which makes your right-wing "sources" into complete and total liars. And let me tell you, if you're willing to lie about murder, you'll lie about anything.
     
  4. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Restrictions on usage

    In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use was banned in most developed countries, beginning with Hungary in 1968[38] then in Norway and Sweden in 1970, Germany and the United States in 1972, but not in the United Kingdom until 1984. By 1991 total bans on the use of DDT, including in disease control, were in place in at least 26 countries; for example Cuba in 1970, Singapore in 1984, Chile in 1985 and the Republic of Korea in 1986.[39]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

    Citations on the page.....

    If you want to debate this, please restrict your emotional outbursts.....
     
  5. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Also if you are interested in lies and duplicity read this:

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1259

    Doubtless you will scream it is all right wing lies but the accounts of total DDT bans being forced on the third world are historic facts, you screeching about them does not change them
     
  6. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    even if you assume that the AGW people are correct the only way to combat it is by making renewable energy cheaper, and that will be through research and innovation not by lining the green corporations pockets with crony capitalism projects which by their very nature are doomed to failure
     
  7. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In the meantime let them burn coal, or oil for power or whatever works for them. Their contribution to AGW (assuming you believe in that stuff) would be tiny and the effect on the lives of the people would be huge.
     
  8. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think natural gas is a good, if not temporary, replacement for coal. The chemical formula in itself should convince people that it is a much better fuel than coal. I also think it would be a good replacement for gasoline and especially diesel fuel for trucks.

    Natural gas CH4...that means one atom of carbon to four atoms of hydrogen...and in small quantities it is renewable.
     
  9. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it is appropriate for government to develop technology, build a small scale setup to demonstrate the feasibility. Maybe even throw in some mild subsidies. But beyond that, if a private company is not choosing to finance the project, chances are it just does not make sense.
     
  10. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Natural gas is "better" than coal. It has FAR fewer of the real pollutants (NOx SOx, metals, etc.) and about 2/3 of the CO2 (assuming one thinks that is important). This is based on a per kilowatt produced calculation, (which is the only correct comparison). Many people think natural gas combustion is CO2 free which is simply not true.

    It is NOT a good replacement for gasoline - here is why. The energy per pound is less than gasoline and diesel. As a result cars and trucks get only about 2/3 the horsepower. More horse[power means a bigger engine, means more weight, so that is not good either. Worse, you cannot carry enough compressed gas to drive the car very far. As I recall you can get about 150 miles or so and then you have to fill up. No as bad as electric cars but for long range truck transport it is just not economical to have to stop every 2 hours.

    It certainly does have a place (like electrics do) but as a complete replacement for gasoline - not yet.
     
  11. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    DDT did a number on predatory birds (aka raptors). It was part of the reason that bald eagles were endangered. Since DDT was restricted, raptors have come back, and the bald eagle is now in the IUCN category of 'Least Concern.'1
     
  12. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
  13. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not false. It's a provable fact that DDT when bioconcentrated in higher level avian predators causes them to produce eggs with weakened shells. It is why these high level avian predators have bounced back since DDT was banned (the average concentration of DDT in peregrine falcons was 2600 ppm in 1969, now it's less than 50. Part of the problem with DDT is that it stays in the environment too long). I do agree that the total ban of DDT was probably an over-reaction. I think that use of DDT in homes (vs. widespread spraying) would probably be effective in reducing malaria without endangering wildlife.
     
  14. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
  15. AKRunner88

    AKRunner88 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Alternative energy especially in the form of solar is advancing to the point where it will probably be economically feasible for the average American in a couple decades.

    The first computer was the size of a 5,000 sf building a few decades ago. Now I can type on one of those in my hand on a device smaller than a wallet.
     
  16. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    If America is not careful it will be left behind in the alternate energy race

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...lar-plants-atop-canals-to-save-on-land-water/
     
  17. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And your current computer (smartphone) has many more capabilities than the first computer.
     

Share This Page